Letters to the Editor — January 3, 2013

Thursday

Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 AM

To the Editor:

There is a letter to the editor showing up in various papers. The writer complains that Carol Shea-Porter is not listening to her constituents on her Facebook page. Maybe the writer doesn’t realize that Carol Shea-Porter’s swearing-in date is Jan. 3; that until that date she actually has no constituents nor does she have an official Facebook page; and that he should write to still-in-office Rep. Frank Guinta, not to Shea-Porter’s campaign Facebook.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Lucy Edwards

Northwood

To the Editor:

Today, Dec. 22, at Mass, our priest asked us to pray for the victims of the Connecticut school massacre, and mentioned that the following night, Dec. 23, there’d be a candlelight vigil to further pray for them and for their bereaved families.

And that’s when it hit me… Dec. 28 is when we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, those children in Bethlehem massacred by the orders of another basket-case. Usually their feast follows Christmas. This year, sadly, it preceded it.

But I am not going to be like everybody else and scream for gun control. The answer is obvious. Gun control is useless. A gun is just a tool. A tool whose purpose is killing, true, but a tool nonetheless. Normally it just lies there. It has to be taken to the place of execution and used by somebody to accomplish its purpose. As the NRA says, “Guns don’t kill people. People use guns to kill people.” Banning guns won’t solve anything: when the British thought to neutralize the Irish by forbidding them the use of swords, the Irish simply developed the use of the skull-cracking shillelagh. When the Japanese tried the same tactic in Okinawa, they went on to develop the nunchuks.

The answer lies elsewhere.

Now, after the fact, we’re being deluged by statements of how the perpetrator’s counselors and psychiatrists all considered him a loose cannon, a bomb just waiting to go off… just like the perpetrator of the Columbine massacre some years ago. Why wasn’t he defused? Why wasn’t he committed? Or at least taken out of school and put in a special one with others like him, where he could be watched? And if there are no schools/institutions like this, then why, in these days of government intervention into everything, not?

A weekly scandal sheet features an article on why the perpetrator’s mom didn’t have him committed. Regardless of the publication, the question is valid. Why didn’t she commit him?

And here’s another thing that needs to be redressed… the mollycoddling of people who are dangerous to the rest of us. In Psycho II, the judge ordered Norman Bates released when he was “judged sane” in spite — in defiance — of the opposition of local residents. When Fritz Haarman was a youth, his father tried to have him committed. The good doctors refused to do so. No doubt they had sundry, weighty reasons for their decision. And Fritz went on to become the German Ted Bundy, who killed an estimated minimum of 100 young boys. Baroness Meister and Don Escudero both also had many reasons why they didn’t summon a priest when her son and his wife became vampires… with disastrous results when they each got loose.

I’ve always called for, when a paroled criminal goes back to his old habits, having the members of the parole board being summoned before national TV and forced to answer the question, “And what were the no doubt excellent reasons you, knowing that individual’s record, voted for his release?”

I now call upon this being expanded to include counselors, psychologists and parents of the perpetrators of school massacres to be likewise made to answer on national TV the question, “If you knew the kid was a danger, why didn’t you have him committed?”

Why not? After all, it’s going to be the exact same question the prosecution’s going to ask them when they stand in judgment before the throne. (Romans 14:10)

It’d be interesting to hear what kind of explanation they’re planning on giving.

BJ Figueredo

Gonic

To the Editor:

There were many things that impressed me about Japan, having spent nearly 12 years in the country as a young man. Most poignant was the ability of the large Japanese population (about half that of the U.S.) to coexist in relative peace and harmony in a nation about the size of California. Japan, with its thriving democracy; enjoys many freedoms, a very high standard of living and one of the world’s highest longevity rates. Despite its diminutive size and dearth of natural resources, Japan has the planet’s third largest economy.

Japan is an old country relative to the U.S. I discovered Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, in every nook and cranny, which were several hundred years older than our nation. We could learn lots from our humble and gracious Japanese friends. Japan’s murder, rape and robbery rates are absolutely minuscule compared to those of the U.S.

As a Japanophile, it was quite simple for me to predict the general Japanese reaction to our latest national tragedy. I viewed a series of spontaneous interviews, online, regarding the U.S. gun culture, conducted with six ordinary Japanese citizens outside of Metropolitan Tokyo’s Shimbashi Train Station. The following is a translation of their indicative thoughts:

The distinguished middle-aged man in the dark business suit stated, “The U.S. is recognized as a modern democracy in the world, but when it comes to guns, it is a barbaric and undeveloped country.”

The young male college student said, “I was surprised to hear that possessing a gun is legal in the U.S. It is totally illegal in Japan.”

The attractive mature woman wearing the red jacket and black scarf asserted, “It is absurd that a normal family has a gun. It enables anyone to cause a crime whenever they get upset. That is very strange. I wish the U.S. will start strict gun control from now on like Japan. We can walk very safely at night in Japan. I sincerely wish the U.S. will become a safe country like ours. “

The spectacled middle-aged man suggested, “If this kind of shooting continues, teachers have to arm themselves. It’s terrible. We no longer live in the Wild West.”

The pretty young lady with the black scarf and pink shirt mentioned, “Horrific murders in Japan would never involve the use of guns, like in America.”

The elderly gentleman adorned in the tweed sport-coat lamented, “Freedom is very important but we are not perfect and get angry very quickly. Having something that can hurt or kill others in arms reach is no good. I am sad rather than angry.”

Although a supporter of the 2nd Amendment’s original intent, I find it naturally easy to rationalize and pragmatically accept the opinions of my Japanese friends and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who described the NRA as, “Instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe.”

Wayne H. Merritt

Dover

To the Editor

Some want Armed Police/Security in all our schools.

Do you want armed Police/Security at our movie theaters, hospitals and malls and other public places to keep all safe as well?

What type of training will these employees have? Will they carry 10 bullets or 50 bullets? What type of guns will they carry? Again what type of training and education will these employees need? Will these employees be of military nature?

Does each town or corporation set their own standards for these town police/security employees? Who will pay for all this? Do you really want to see armed personnel wherever you bring your children and family?

Not the America I envisioned.

I want to see our youth educated about peace and loving their neighbors. I want all who are mentally ill to feel needed and cared for, as they deserve.

Do you really think it will make things safer having armed employees in most public places or could that be dangerous as well? What is a public place?